To Deface the Nomos

[9th]

Cynicism is one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies.^[8] It offered people the possibility of happiness and freedom from suffering in an age of uncertainty. Although there was never an official Cynic doctrine, the fundamental principles of Cynicism can be summarised as follows:^[9][10][11]

• The goal of life is Eudaimonia and mental clarity or lucidity (ἁτυφια) - freedom from τύφος (smoke) which signified ignorance, mindlessness, folly, and conceit.
• 
  
• Eudaimonia is achieved by living in accord with Nature as understood by human reason.
• 
  
• τύφος (Arrogance) is caused by false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions, unnatural desires, and a vicious character.
• 
  
• Eudaimonia or human flourishing, depends on self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια), equanimity, arete, love of humanity, parrhesia and indifference to the vicissitudes of life (ἁδιαφορία).^[11]
• 
  
• One progresses towards flourishing and clarity through ascetic practices (ἄσκησις) which help one become free from influences – such as wealth, fame, or power – that have no value in Nature. Examples include Diogenes' practice of living in a tub and walking barefoot in winter.
• 
  
• A Cynic practices shamelessness or impudence (Αναιδεια) and defaces the Nomos of society; the laws, customs, and social conventions which people take for granted.
• 
  

 

Thus a Cynic has no property and rejects all conventional values of money, fame, power or reputation.^[9] A life lived according to nature requires only the bare necessities required for existence, and one can become free by unshackling oneself from any needs which are the result of convention.^[12] The Cynics adopted Hercules as their hero, as epitomizing the ideal Cynic.^[13] Hercules "was he who brought Cerberus, the hound of Hades, from the underworld, a point of special appeal to the dog-man, Diogenes."^[14] According to Lucian, "Cerberus and Cynic are surely related through the dog."^[15]

 

 

The Cynic way of life required continuous training, not just in exercising one's judgments and mental impressions, but a physical training as well:

 

 

[Diogenes] used to say, that there were two kinds of exercise: that, namely, of the mind and that of the body; and that the latter of these created in the mind such quick and agile impressions at the time of its performance, as very much facilitated the practice of virtue; but that one was imperfect without the other, since the health and vigour necessary for the practice of what is good, depend equally on both mind and body.^[16]

 

None of this meant that the Cynic would retreat from society. Cynics would in fact live in the full glare of the public's gaze and would be quite indifferent in the face of any insults which might result from their unconventional behaviour.^[9] The Cynics are said to have invented the idea of cosmopolitanism: when he was asked where he came from, Diogenes replied that he was "a citizen of the world, (kosmopolitês)."^[17]

 

The ideal Cynic would evangelise; as the watchdog of humanity, it was their job to hound people about the error of their ways.^[9] The example of the Cynic's life (and the use of the Cynic's biting satire) would dig-up and expose the pretensions which lay at the root of everyday conventions.^[9]

 

Although Cynicism concentrated solely on ethics, Cynic philosophy had a big impact on the Hellenistic world, ultimately becoming an important influence for Stoicism. The Stoic Apollodorus writing in the 2nd century BC stated that "Cynicism is the short path to virtue."^[18]

 

 

 

 

Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to Alexander with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many people coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, "Yes," said Diogenes, "stand a little out of my sun."

 

It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, "But truly, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes."

 

- Plutarch

[Nungali]

Although Eudaimonia may depend on self sufficiency , 'human flourishing' depends on the ideal social set up ; relating to society and culture, which are regulated by perceived 'natural law'  or 'Cosmic order' ( Ma'at     -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat ) .

 

So, to 'deface the Nomos' *  would seem to be a disruption to 'human flourishing' and counter-productive to Eudaimonia ? 

 

Admittedly p[arts of 'the article' (your post seems to be extracts from Wiki with no personal views ? )  seem to relate to 'false or pretentious 'nomos', or what we might consider 'the norm' ... but I cant see the distinction outlined .... especially in the title, the listing of the 'fundamental principles'  or the 'intent' of the post ? ? ? 

 

 

 

*  Nomos stands for order, valid and binding on those who fall under its jurisdiction; thus it is a social construct with ethical dimensions. .....  We all need that structuring nomos; it provides us with stability, predictability, a frame of reference in which to live. The alternative is the chaos and terror of what Berger calls anomy. .... ( from the references and definitions  given in the article itself)

Edited March 8, 2015 by Nungali

[9th]

Although Eudaimonia may depend on self sufficiency , 'human flourishing' depends on the ideal social set up ; relating to society and culture, which are regulated by perceived 'natural law'  or 'Cosmic order' ( Ma'at     -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat ) .

 

So, to 'deface the Nomos' *  would seem to be a disruption to 'human flourishing' and counter-productive to Eudaimonia ? 

 

Imagine you live in a contested region of Palestine, for example - and you speak out against the terrorism occurring around you at the behest of the local authorities - you are saying such action is counter-productive to Eudaimonia?  That is defacing the nomos.  Since you are not american, I doubt you know of Rosa Parks, but her famous bus sitting is the perfect example of "defacing the nomos".  It certainly gets much more subtle from there.

 

You have conflated your idea of "human flourishing" into this in a strange way that I find silly.  It is the same as saying that achieving Wei Wu Wei depends on living somewhere that has the right kind of government in place. 

 

Fortunately, thats not the case at all.  Eudaimonia depends on nothing but your own personal choices.  Living in accord with nature is Eudaimonia.  It is the same concept as Wu Wei.  Both could be translated as "Harmony".  The greeks tended to emphasize the personal whereas the chinese tended to emphasize the impersonal.

 

I dont translate it as "human flourishing", and I dont exactly know what you understand that to mean - nor do I have any interest in finding out.  I consider our current human society to be incredibly fucked up and broken.  You may disagree, so be it. 

 

Admittedly p[arts of 'the article' (your post seems to be extracts from Wiki with no personal views ? )  seem to relate to 'false or pretentious 'nomos', or what we might consider 'the norm' ... but I cat see the distinction outlined .... especially in the title, the listing of the 'fundamental principles'  or the 'intent' of the post ? ? ? 

Of course its a wiki article, and therefore an aggregate of numerous sites - its not a single article in and of itself.

 

But the cynics were known for their "antinomian" principles and values, as were numerous other philosophical, religious and esoteric groups throughout history.  It is not unique to them, but rather it is unique to a certain kind of nature that some creatures are aligned with... but such creatures can appear in all places, in all times, in all forms - they are not limited to a particular nationality or racial background or even species.

 

Also, you cannot ascribe absolutes to concepts of social ethics.  Our human world is not a matter of "order" or "chaos".  Human society is a matter of cultural convention, which changes frequently according to time and place.  Moral law is not natural law, it is a man made construct which is subject solely to the whims of its creator - be they based on social equality and justice, or rank hypocrisy, greed, violence, hatred, etc.  What is considered truly immoral today was considered entirely moral and even sanctified in the past.  Inquisitions, slavery, burning witches, etc. etc.  And it goes on and on.

 

This is really and truly very basic stuff.  It always serves one well to have one's head and ass wired together.  Good luck.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

You have conflated your idea of "human flourishing" into this in a strange way that I find silly.  It is the same as saying that achieving Wei Wu Wei depends on living somewhere that has the right kind of government in place.  (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Eudaimonia is not the exclusive property of Cynics, but was the root from which all Hellenic Philosophy sprang. There are other discussions of the matter and Nungali's position is not merely his own, nor is it strange, no matter how silly you find it.

 

Since you are not american, I doubt you know of Rosa Parks, but her famous bus sitting is the perfect example of "defacing the nomos".  It certainly gets much more subtle from there.

 

I am an American and I do know of Rosa Parks, I also know that if she had been one who believed that eudaimonia was solely dependent on herself, she would have gone to the back of the bus, humming happily all the way, but she, like Nungali thought that "human flourishing" depended on a society whose nomos respected individuals and their rights as human beings.

 

Of the Greek Philosophical schools, only the stoics believed that "happiness", an alternative translation to eudaimonia, depended solely on the mental state of the person.  I won't dignify the Cynics with the title Philosophers, even though they do at least claim descent from that arch-gadfly Socrates by way of Antisthenes.  This is a complex issue and one that is tied of with the Hellenic debates of Nomos vs. Phusis and which cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by quotes from wikipedia articles and gnomic utterances such as those that make up the rest of your post.

 

I am very familiar with the issues having made Hellenic and Hellenistic Philosophy on of my principle studies for 35 or so years.  The fundamental issue is the relationship between Human Nature and conventional values and the notion that they were not related basically lost out even in Stoicism.  In general the conclusion of Greek Philosophy is that nomos might be considered to be a reflection of Human Nature and like reflections it can be distorted by the quality of the reflecting media.  The end result was:

 

Natural Law Theory

 

Which has helped to stabilize nomos, but can be distorted by determined effort.

 

More recently these ideas have received support from such work as Axelrod's work in game theory and his application of his results to evolutionary systems, as represented in his:

 

The Evolution of Cooperation

 

The rest of your post shows a confusion over these matters that might be helped by reading:

 

The Cambridge History of Greek Philosophy by W. K. C. Guthrie, Six Volumes

 

I certainly gained a lot from it and many other books that I read, especially the Works of Eric Vogelin.  I came out of the adventure a Platonist.

 

This is really and truly very basic stuff.  It always serves one well to have one's head and ass wired together.  Good luck.

 

I wish this stuff really was "basic stuff", then it could be taught in Elementary Schools where it would do some good.

 

In the end there is more to "human flourishing" than just "wuwei", and Confucianism is probably the best complement to Greek thought, but Confucianism is not well understood around here either.  Of course neither is wuwei, as the interminable arguments here and elsewhere demonstrate.

[the1gza]

Can anyone honestly say they know what nature is though? If nature is only what you perceive and reason, then how can we say for sure we whether or not we are living according to "nature" or not? Does nature honestly fit into a dualistic framework that is perceived through normally narrow perceptual ranges? Not to say that folks don't get to this Wuwei through their naturalistic efforts, but can it be said that how we live now is actually unnatural? Can we say that some other way of living, for sure, is more natural for the entirety of a group, village, city, nation, planet?

[9th]

  I won't dignify the Cynics with the title Philosophers, even though they do at least claim descent from that arch-gadfly Socrates by way of Antisthenes.  

 

Thats ok, I wont dignify your post with a real response.

 

Opinions are such wonderful things, dont you agree?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Can anyone honestly say they know what nature is though? If nature is only what you perceive and reason, then how can we say for sure we whether or not we are living according to "nature" or not? Does nature honestly fit into a dualistic framework that is perceived through normally narrow perceptual ranges? Not to say that folks don't get to this Wuwei through their naturalistic efforts, but can it be said that how we live now is actually unnatural? Can we say that some other way of living, for sure, is more natural for the entirety of a group, village, city, nation, planet?

 

Can anyone honestly say they know what nature is though?: Absolutely.

 

If nature is only what you perceive and reason: This is the empiricist fallacy which started a slow rise in the Seventeenth Century to dominate Western thought in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, but was not typical of Western Philosophy from the Hellenistic period to about 1800, when Empiricism started to completely eclipse the older organic/holistic view which characterized Western Philosophy previously.

 

To quote from the Wikipedia article on Natural Law:

 

According to Plato we live in an orderly universe. At the basis of this orderly universe or nature are the forms, most fundamentally the Form of the Good, which Plato describes as "the brightest region of Being". The Form of the Good is the cause of all things and when it is seen it leads a person to act wisely. In the Symposium, the Good is closely identified with the Beautiful. Also in the Symposium, Plato describes how the experience of the Beautiful by Socrates enables him to resist the temptations of wealth and sex. In the Republic, the ideal community is, "...a city which would be established in accordance with nature." (Plato discussion in the Wikipedia article on Natural Law, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

We can "know" this "Form of the Good", because the good is already a part of us, this is the epistemological basis of the Microcosm/Macrocosm doctrine which I have dealt with in the context of Self-knowledge here:

 

The notion that all one needs to know is oneself is founded on the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy, well represented by this quote attributed to Paracelsus:

 

 

If I have manna in my constitution, I can attract manna from heaven. Melissa is not only in the garden, but also in the air and in heaven. Saturn is not only in the sky, but also deep in the ocean and Earth. What is Venus but the artemisia that grows in your garden, and what is iron but the planet Mars? That is to say, Venus and Artemisia are both products of the same essence, while Mars and iron are manifestations of the same cause. What is the human body but a constellation of the same powers that formed the stars in the sky? He who knows Mars knows the qualities of iron, and he who knows what iron is knows the attributes of Mars. What would become of your heart if there were no Sun in the Universe? What would be the use of your 'Vasa Spermatica* if there were no Venus? To grasp the invisible elements, to attract them by their material correspondences, to control, purify, and transmute, them by the ever-moving powers of the living spirit—this is true Alchemy." (Burgoyne, Thomas H., The Light of Egypt, H. O. Wagner, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1965, Vol. II, p. 63, I have not been able to otherwise source this quote attributed to Paracelsus)

In the West it became fundamental to Metaphysics and Ontology, but originated as an Epistimological theory:

 

Like is only known by like in Empedocles

 

because it solves a lot of problems created both by Parmenides on the one hand and the early Greek Atomists on the other.

 

This doctrine was worked out by Plato in a very profound way and continued to influence Western Philosophy up to Hegel.

 

It existed in China as can be seen in this quote from the Confucian, Mencius:

7A:4

萬物皆備於我矣。反身而誠、樂莫大焉。彊恕而行、求仁莫近焉。

(Mencius at The Chinese Text Project)

 

I prefer this translation to the one on The Chinese Text Project:

 

"All the ten thousand things are there in me. There is no greater joy for me than to find, on self-examination, that I am true to myself. Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence."

(D. C. Lau, Mencius, Penguin Books, 1970, p. 182, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

and was also used in Daoism.

 

In Plato, as becomes very clear in Plotinus, all things, including our own divine being as already there within us, it allows this type of knowledge of God:

Then, in this way know God; as having all things in Himself as thoughts, the whole Cosmos itself. If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable to like [alone]. Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life. Become more lofty than all height, and lower than all depth. Collect into thyself all senses of [all] creatures,—of fire, [and] water, dry and moist. Think that thou art at the same time in every place,—in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, [and] dead, in after-death conditions. And if thou knowest all these things at once,—times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know God. But if thou lockest up thy soul within thy body, and dost debase it, saying: I nothing know; I nothing can; I fear the sea; I cannot scale the sky; I know not who I was, who I shall be;—what is there [then] between [thy] God and thee? For thou canst know naught of things beautiful and good so long as thou dost love thy body and art bad. The greatest bad there is, is not to know God’s Good; but to be able to know [Good], and will, and hope, is a Straight Way, the Good’s own [Path], both leading there and easy. (Corpus Hermeticum XI, "Mind unto Hermes", p. 187-8) (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

as is found in the Corpus Hermeticum. The text which I emphasized above, "If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable to like", emphasizes the epistemological origin of this practice and it is only the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy that makes it possible. This is a very Western approach approach to God as the fullness of Creation and the unifying One at its root, though the approach to the One as the one itself is also part of Western Philosophy especially in Plotinus.

 

 

 

 

Edit: Changed had to hand in "Parmenides on the one hand" above.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope this is helpful.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Thats ok, I wont dignify your post with a real response.

 

Opinions are such wonderful things, dont you agree?

 

Like all sophists you make no distinction between the quality of an opinion which can vary from "right opinion" to the most egregious nonsense. Plato deals with these matters in considerable detail. It is the fact that there can be such a thing as "right opinion" that makes them interesting, it is the difficulty of finding right opinion, that should keep us humble.

[9th]

[Nungali]

" Thats ok, I wont dignify your post with a real response "

 

 

It doesnt need your response to 'dignify' it ... it established its own 'dignity'.

 

 

As I think you have established yours.

 

 

Did you get out of your depth  and have to respond with ; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you feel it is a waste of time  (instead of the possibility of learning something) ... then why are you wasting your time here? 

[9th]

" Thats ok, I wont dignify your post with a real response "

 

It doesnt need your response to 'dignify' it ... it established its own 'dignity'.

 

As I think you have established yours.

 

Did you get out of your depth  and have to respond with ; 

 

If you feel it is a waste of time  (instead of the possibility of learning something) ... then why are you wasting your time here? 

 

I dont consider myself a scholar, and to be frank I couldn't really care less about debating the minutiae of these concepts ad infinitum... especially with scholars and even more especially with "experts".  The terminology is nowhere near as important to me as the reality itself.  If you wish to twist and twist in the wind, then go right ahead.  I welcome and encourage the disparity, the obfuscation, the fragmentation and so forth that occurs in the sprawling depths of false appropriations from fatal intellectualism.  Think again of Cerberus.  

 

"The menu is not the meal" and its not something that interests me enough to spend a great deal of time on (except in rare cases, for certain reasons).  I prefer to spend my time doing things that are meaningful and worthy of it.  For example, to attain "dignity" in your eyes, or in the eyes of almost everyone on this forum - has absolutely no value to me.  In fact, its often counterproductive to accomplishing my actual objectives.

 

I can tell you with great certainty that you have not divulged the intent of my original post, nor the responses, but that is only to be expected.  'Why is that?' you may ask.  And that would be good.  But then again, why should you?  

[the1gza]

 

Can anyone honestly say they know what nature is though?: Absolutely.

 

If nature is only what you perceive and reas

and was also used in Daoism.

 

In Plato, as becomes very clear in Plotinus, all things, including our own divine being as already there within us, it allows this type of knowledge of God:

 

as is found in the Corpus Hermeticum. The text which I emphasized above, "If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable to like", emphasizes the epistemological origin of this practice and it is only the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy that makes it possible. This is a very Western approach approach to God as the fullness of Creation and the unifying One at its root, though the approach to the One as the one itself is also part of Western Philosophy especially in Plotinus.

 

 

 

 

Edit: Changed had to hand in "Parmenides on the one hand" above.

 

 

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

 

I stand by this as well, in a sense that knowing yourself is the goal and the key to being unlimited. However, what I am saying is that when you get on that road to self-discovery, what is realized becomes something that is very personal. So what I find to be "natural" may have absolutely nothing to do with what you or anyone else discovers. This is completely possible, because if, at the heart of it all, "God" is unlimited, then the revelation of nature has an infinite amount of flourishings that can be realized. 

 

The problem I have is that when people talk about "nature", I find that their particular flourishing is something they consider to be a priority for everyone. However, attempts at finding a "universal" definition of nature has a 0% track record of success, at least in a recorded sense. Some folks view the "natural" as living in a more "wildlife" style of being, while others consider the current mode more than natural enough. Both have arguments that are valid when viewed unbiasedly, and both have their failures based on an exhaustive plight to have everyone believe their flourishing is right. It's been the basis of every war on Earth... "I'm right, you're wrong." 

 

So when I ask whether or not we can say what is truthfully nature, perhaps I should ask whether or not we can actually prioritize a particular definition of nature when nature holds an infinite amount of flourishings that can garner and infinite number of understandings and realizations? I could argue that the only thing that is unnatural is perhaps being defined or confined by only one understanding of nature, or pushing for all of humanity to be like that. I experience this as being the current dilemma of humankind, trying to live by universal meanings rather than living with the ability to create and experience infinite, "Universal" flourishings.

[9th]

So when I ask whether or not we can say what is truthfully nature, perhaps I should ask whether or not we can actually prioritize a particular definition of nature when nature holds an infinite amount of flourishings that can garner and infinite number of understandings and realizations? I could argue that the only thing that is unnatural is perhaps being defined or confined by only one understanding of nature, or pushing for all of humanity to be like that. I experience this as being the current dilemma of humankind, trying to live by universal meanings rather than living with the ability to create and experience infinite, "Universal" flourishings.

 

This is a good point, because I am certainly not positing that the peculiar behavior of the cynics and other antinomian groups is the key to a utopian society.  Its more like an immune response to the current situation.  And as I have indicated many, many, many times and will continue to do so - individual people have individual paths, like snowflakes... and also groups of people have group paths - but they are of widely diverse varieties.  There is no universal solution or prescription that should be mandated for everyone, except at the highest level where such diversity and individuality ceases to have any relevance - and at that point there is no need for any discussion anyways.

 

I also wanted to point out the differences between a personal nature (essential qualities you are born with, rather than that which is acquired as you age and are trained by society), and the universal nature, which provides things like light, motion, gravity, stars, planets, etc. etc. - in other words, the laws that govern physical existence.  Of course they are just different points on the same vast scale - but it is a distinction worth making as human beings.  This is important because you must first be in complete harmony with your own personal nature or essence, before you can even attempt to live in harmony with universal nature in an active, conscious way.  Now this gets a bit complicated because in reality, there is no way for anyone to live outside the dictates of universal nature - as that is by definition, the way of things.  So, there is an alignment which happens when body, mind and spirit are aligned in themselves, and then the greater alignment occurs as this personal unity works in tandem with the fundamental objectives of universal nature - which is all things and none of them.  

 

Here is where the crux of the matter lies, because authority figures from the beginning of history have taken it upon themselves to proclaim the objectives of universal nature, and the goals to which all life is striving towards.  It directly informs the basis of religious and secular morality.  And this, of course, has been a matter of great debate throughout history - the cause of great wars and so forth.  Here is where I remind you that I consider our global society to be "incredibly fucked up and broken", and as such, not based on any accurate view of the objectives of universal nature.  Rather it is based on greed, and other inherently dysfunctional self-serving impulses.  It is a necessary stepping stone, as this is our path of evolution - but it is so, so very far from being "ideal".  This is my perspective.

 

I have theories on how we have got here.. such as the remaining human reliance of tribal thought, boundaries and property rights.. hoarding food and shelter and so forth... the propensity of group think by way of identification with a concept which is "bigger than life" and so forth.  I could write a dissertation on this and I have done so in other places, in the past - but here and now, I am shaking it all out in a different way.  Stay tuned.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Because of limitations in time right now I cannot address more than this point:

 

The problem I have is that when people talk about "nature", I find that their particular flourishing is something they consider to be a priority for everyone. However, attempts at finding a "universal" definition of nature has a 0% track record of success, at least in a recorded sense. Some folks view the "natural" as living in a more "wildlife" style of being, while others consider the current mode more than natural enough. Both have arguments that are valid when viewed unbiasedly, and both have their failures based on an exhaustive plight to have everyone believe their flourishing is right. It's been the basis of every war on Earth... "I'm right, you're wrong."

The reason for this is because most people never question their beliefs, they never engage in the type of self-knowledge that I recommend here:

 

 

I have said elsewhere several times that I 'believe' that the most profound and useful form of introspection and self-inquiry is the inventory of beliefs. To take advantage of what Manitou has posted take an inventory of all the things that you do believe and then assume that you are wrong about them. Then take an inventory of everything that you don't believe and then assume that you are wrong about them. Then ask yourself why do I believe this, why don't I believe that.

It's no good saying that 'so and so', whether great mystic, prophet or teacher said it, because then you have to ask why do I believe what they said. You can't say that it is scientific, or 'church' doctrine because then you have to answer why do you believe that science or the 'church' can be considered authoritative. Eventually you come down to the decisions that you have made about what you believe and why you believe it.

Some people try to short circuit this process by saying "I don't believe it, I know it", but then the question is 'Why do you believe that you know it?' and what beliefs do you have about 'knowledge' that allows you to claim it?

I could go on, but I have said enough to get the general point across, however, I anticipate a criticism that such an inquiry is all about words and beliefs and I should get 'out of my head and into my heart and belly.' Since I have recently had reason to mention General Semantics on the Tao Bums and have mentioned it elsewhere in the past, I will quote an interesting story told about its founder Alfred Korzybski:

 

One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter. (Wikipedia on Alfred Korzybski: Anecdotes)

We all 'ate' a lot of words growing up and a lot of them are there in our hearts and our bellies and the they determine who we think we are and how we act. Maybe we should get to know what they are.

The Platonic/Socratic dialectic is a process of asking people these questions in such a way as to “undermine the nomos” and a good job of "undermining the nomos" can lead to things like this:

Attempts to “deface the nomos” usually just result in defensiveness and arguments. Plato undermined the Hellenic nomos based on the models of the Homoric epics and was amazingly successful, his techniques are as powerful today as they were then. His insights into life in the “cave” and how to escape it have been an inspiration for 2500 years. As I have more time I may post more.

[9th]

To cast aside, not save, I come. Inexorably towards myself; to smash the law, to make havoc of the charlatans, the quacks, the swankers and brawling salvationists with their word-tawdry phantasmagoria; to disillusion and awaken every fear of your natural, rapacious selves.

 

Living the most contemptible and generating everything beastly, are ye so vain of your excuse to expect other than the worst of your imagining?

 

Honesty is unvoiced! And I warn you to make holocaust of your saints, your excuses: these flatulent bellowings of your ignorance. Only then could I assure your lurking desire - easy remission of your bowdlerised sins.

 

Criminals of folly? Ye but sin against self.

 

There is no sin for those of Heaven's delight. I would ye resist not nor exploit your evil: such is of fear, and somnambulism is born of hypocrisy.

 

In pleasure Heaven shall break every law before this Earth shall pass away. Thus if I possessed, my goodness towards ye would be volcanic.

 

He who is lawless is free. Necessity and time are conventional phenomena.

[Nungali]

Deface or undermine  ? 

 

Thumb the nose, insult ... plant a seed and hope for the best  - or -   undertake effective action. 

 

Deface the edifice or deeply examine and question the foundations and what they based on . 

 

Paint the wall ... or pull it down ? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[9th]

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

To cast aside, not save, I come. Inexorably towards myself; to smash the law, to make havoc of the charlatans, the quacks, the swankers and brawling salvationists with their word-tawdry phantasmagoria; to disillusion and awaken every fear of your natural, rapacious selves.

 

Living the most contemptible and generating everything beastly, are ye so vain of your excuse to expect other than the worst of your imagining?

 

Honesty is unvoiced! And I warn you to make holocaust of your saints, your excuses: these flatulent bellowings of your ignorance. Only then could I assure your lurking desire - easy remission of your bowdlerised sins.

 

Criminals of folly? Ye but sin against self.

 

There is no sin for those of Heaven's delight. I would ye resist not nor exploit your evil: such is of fear, and somnambulism is born of hypocrisy.

 

In pleasure Heaven shall break every law before this Earth shall pass away. Thus if I possessed, my goodness towards ye would be volcanic.

 

He who is lawless is free. Necessity and time are conventional phenomena. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

 

My, how we jump around, from talking about the Cynics to quoting Austin Osman Spare. Those who would like to read the rest can find it here:

 

A. O. Spare The Anathema of Zos

 

I don't find such “prophetical” revelations convincing whether they are Biblical Prophets or early Twentieth Century artists. What's next Chaos Magic? The last line though is of interest because by saying that, “Necessity and time are conventional phenomena”, “necessity and time”, with necessity being a possible reference to the Greek, Ananke, could be read as a reference to the “world” of sensory experience as nomos and as such just a set of bad habits. Sheldrake's Morphogenic Fields almost amount to that, but his ideas have serious consistency problems.

 

One of reasons why I am pointing this out is because of what I said earlier:

 

 

The fundamental issue is the relationship between Human Nature and conventional values and the notion that they were not related basically lost out even in Stoicism. In general the conclusion of Greek Philosophy is that nomos might be considered to be a reflection of Human Nature and like reflections it can be distorted by the quality of the reflecting media. (Emphasis added, ZYD)

 

 

Aristotle for example started a study of the constitutions of various countries in the hope of finding in their commonalities a guide to nomos, but Plato had a more radical notion and that was the the whole of the sensory world was a reflection and/or representation of a higher reality and as such served as a reminder of the whole of which we are in a sense parts, but parts that reflect within ourselves that whole, thus the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy. Sensory experience was the mathematical representation of the higher realm with with Time as the “changing image of Eternity” in mathematical cycles, and space became its expression in Geometric forms. Plato represented this as a line divided into four sections. The main feature of this is that two of the four are the objects of mind/consciousnes and are called intelligibles, these are the who “higher” realms, and the other two are experienced through sensory experience, or by the imaginative faculty. The other important point is that these are all linked and represent differentiations of the power of Knowledge/perception, in other words there is no sharp break which could be interpreted as a “duality” in the Cartesian sense, rather it is a continuity of greater to more diminished clarity of perception. Thus perception and the sensory world, would indeed be nomos, in the sense I proposed earlier as a reflection of human nature, but expanded as a reflection of Cosmic nature, and thus not merely an illusion, or set of bad habits. More details about this can be found here:

 

Plato's Divided Line

 

with a long and fairly complete analysis of the Divided line referenced in the Wikipedia article here:

 

Psychology, Philosophy, and Plato's Divided Line

 

In many ways the divided line points back to what was said here:

 

 

I also wanted to point out the differences between a personal nature (essential qualities you are born with, rather than that which is acquired as you age and are trained by society), and the universal nature, which provides things like light, motion, gravity, stars, planets, etc. etc. - in other words, the laws that govern physical existence. Of course they are just different points on the same vast scale - but it is a distinction worth making as human beings. This is important because you must first be in complete harmony with your own personal nature or essence, before you can even attempt to live in harmony with universal nature in an active, conscious way. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

 

a position which I fundamentally share, and is basically Platonic, though Plato and I work out the details in a somewhat different way from what I suspect 9th does.

[9th]

I understand that all of this classical terminology is very important to you, but imho, it is beyond obsessive.  The constant fixation on terminology tends to make one unable to see the forest for the trees, and is a hindrance to genuine communication.  I dont really have the time to wait around for you to come alive, at this point in your game.  We can both talk about what other people have said, endlessly - and not much will come of that either.  But the time has come today.  Its all about the agenda.  The agency of the present.  What's next?

[Nungali]

Disentanglement . 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I understand that all of this classical terminology is very important to you, but imho, it is beyond obsessive. The constant fixation on terminology tends to make one unable to see the forest for the trees, and is a hindrance to genuine communication. I dont really have the time to wait around for you to come alive, at this point in your game. We can both talk about what other people have said, endlessly - and not much will come of that either. But the time has come today. Its all about the agenda. The agency of the present. What's next?

 

but imho, it is beyond obsessive: Obsessive compulsive perhaps?

 

I dont really have the time to wait around for you to come alive: Well, don't wait around on my account, if this also means I am dead, then good, Socrates always said that Philosophy was a preparation for death.

 

This poor, unfortunate, obsessive compulsive, dead word slave is only to happy to shake the dirt that you have kicked on the neat designer knockoff scholar's loafers, that I often don to post on the Dao Bums and continue on my merry way without you, after all Plato has said in the Gorgias:

 

 

[527c] Take my advice, therefore, and follow me where, if you once arrive, you will be happy both in life and after life's end, as this account declares. And allow anyone to contemn you as a fool and foully maltreat you if he chooses; yes, by Heaven [527d] and suffer undaunted the shock of that ignominious cuff; for you will come to no harm if you be really a good and upright man . . . (Plato, Gorgias, 527c-527d at Perseus Digital Library)

 

But, I do have to say thanks, you have given me a great opportunity to expound Plato and in your absence I can continue taking your own words and showing how little they differ from what Plato describes, like I did in my previous post, you have done me a great service.  It shows that I was not wrong to protest when you were banned and to argue for your reinstatement.  Yes, things really do work out for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.

 

 

Thank you too Leibniz!

 

 

 

 

Edit: Changed some spacing, I accidentally hit post before I had really finished, well, all's tor the best.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Nungali]

Now that you mention Gorgias ...

 

9th reminds me of a certain character in Gorgias  ( not Plato ! )  .   

 

Edited March 11, 2015 by Nungali

[Zhongyongdaoist]

As I mentioned in another thread about the Sixty Jaizi Generals and their use in Fengshui and Chinese Magic, an ironical counterpoint to here where I have been portrayed as an all talk intellectual air head, at the beginning of last week:
 

I will try to get this up shortly, the next few days promise to very busy.

 
It has been very busy and I have not had much time to do more than think about this thread and how much more I wish to post on someone else's thread about "defacing the Nomos" and the Joys of a Dog's life, and I have decided that the anachroistic representations of Platonism as just a form of, and precursor to modern "intellectualism", is something that I will have to address, but how much and to what extant I am not sure.  The one thing that I will say now and that I can show, at least to open minded people, is that Platonism is a fundamentally mystical philosophy and that it harnesses the mind and reason for the purposes of escaping from the nomos and grounding ones "knowledge" in a direct and "mystical" encounter with the transcendent.  That this creates what basically amounts to a "rational mysticism" is something that someone subscribing to the post Romantic nomos of anti-rationalism will find hard to believe can be assumed, and since most people who read and post on the Dao Bums fall into this category it is an uphill battle.  For now this is about all I can say about the matter, though I do hope to post a fuller account shortly, though the number of times that I have said that only to find that it is weeks or months before I can return to a topic is unfortunately, a true if unhappy fact.
 

Now that you mention Gorgias ...

9th reminds me of a certain character in Gorgias ( not Plato ! ) .

 

I don't see much point in discussing 9th further, unless future posts from him make that necessary.  All I will say for now is that, had he  been less rude and arrogant to you, I might not have been as short with him.  In the past I have found some of his posts interesting and bear no ill will to him.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I'm actually working on it now, just doing some background review and wondering how much of the context of Daoist Military magic I wish to introduce as a part of the discussion.

[9th]

Disentanglement . 

 

Prove it